This Should send a message to the Government of Quebec and the Federal Liberals

[rick_iles]

What BS?? What that my Safe has not been seen by the cops??? That I don;t have a friend who just retired from the Ottawa Police force?? I dare say you have no idea, do you??

I know you are out to lunch with respect to charges laid in cases where guns are stolen from locked safes!!!

[fishermccann]

More BS !!!!!

........X2

[73hunter]

If you actually think all LEO's play by the book and treat everyone the same and fair, you sir are sadly mistaken...

I think you are misunderstanding my posts. I mean that a person who takes logical steps to safely store their firearms (ie in a safe sold for that purpose) should not fear charges if a thief got to them, UNLESS the guy had pissed off the LEO’s previously and they were out to get him. Which I think is what Rick and a few others are saying.

[canadaman30]

I think you are misunderstanding my posts. I mean that a person who takes logical steps to safely store their firearms (ie in a safe sold for that purpose) should not fear charges if a thief got to them, UNLESS the guy had pissed off the LEO’s previously and they were out to get him. Which I think is what Rick and a few others are saying.

Read my post I said a person who decided not to register his guns during the LGR had a break-in and was charged with unsafe storage. Although his guns were stored proper, he still was charged.

[welsh]

Read my post I said a person who decided not to register his guns during the LGR had a break-in and was charged with unsafe storage. Although his guns were stored proper, he still was charged.

To get a conviction on unsafe storage, the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt either

1. That the manner in which the guns were stored was contrary to regulation, or

2. That the manner in which the guns were stored, although not necessarily counter to regulation, did not meet the standard of care of a reasonable person in the circumstances. For example: the guns are stored in a locked cabinet, but the key is left in clear view on top of the cabinet.

Either requires specific evidence of how the guns were stored. That they were stolen is not sufficient to prove unsafe storage.

So it is not inconceivable that a person whose guns were, in their mind, safely stored could actually be charged and convicted. But having your guns stolen won't necessarily lead there.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[canadaman30]

To get a conviction on unsafe storage, the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt either

1. That the manner in which the guns were stored was contrary to regulation, or

2. That the manner in which the guns were stored, although not necessarily counter to regulation, did not meet the standard of care of a reasonable person in the circumstances. For example: the guns are stored in a locked cabinet, but the key is left in clear view on top of the cabinet.

Either requires specific evidence of how the guns were stored. That they were stolen is not sufficient to prove unsafe storage.

So it is not inconceivable that a person whose guns were, in their mind, safely stored could actually be charged and convicted. But having your guns stolen won't necessarily lead there.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

I guess you have problem reading as well. When did I ever say anything about him being convicted? I said a friend was charged and it cost him a lot of money. He found out the hard way how police work all because he decided not to register his guns, so they made life difficult for him. Again if you think all police play by the same set of rules, you are also sadly mistaken...

[73hunter]

Geez guys, I guess none of us can catch up with Canadaman’s intellect - or attitude.

[Gilroy]

The safe storage of firearms was SOLD to gun owners under the guise of a prevention of suicide period. Why do I know this, I was one of the SALESMEN who sold this concept to a few hundred police officers who I had to train in the then new firearms legislation,as I was one of the first Provincially appointed local firearms officers.

Being on the job I had no objection to making sure guns were stored safely why would I.

The problem is in the wording of the laws and I believe this was done on purpose to give the police as much latitude in laying charges.

But here we are some 22 years on with no clear definitions on what safe storage is for the lay person or the police officer.

So hundreds of charges have be laid, deals are made to suit each case,including withdrawing them before trial and we still have a mess.

Its great for the lawyers as they make money,great for the courts,great for gun receptacle makers but really crap for the common gun owners.

The slight differences in the regulations between storage,display,transport,in use, add to the confusion.Hence the problem continues.

https://nfa.ca/2005/02/25/safe-and-l...cted-firearms/

[welsh]

I guess you have problem reading as well. When did I ever say anything about him being convicted? I said a friend was charged and it cost him a lot of money. He found out the hard way how police work all because he decided not to register his guns, so they made life difficult for him. Again if you think all police play by the same set of rules, you are also sadly mistaken...

Doesn't matter if he was convicted or not.

The Crown does not pursue charges where there is no prospect of conviction. Which means the Crown would have had to feel they could make out the elements of the 86(1) offence, i.e. failure to meet a reasonable standard of care, or that they had evidence the guns were not, in fact, stored per regulation.

There is a common thread in some of these replies suggesting police lay charges to harass people where there is no evidence of an offence. Reality is, malicious prosecution is a tort. Police will not lay charges and the Crown certainly won't pursue them unless they can make a good faith case. So, while the cops may try to "get" someone who for some reason is on their radar, it's very rare they'll do that without evidence of a real offence.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

[Gilroy]

welsh quote

" Police will not lay charges and the Crown certainly won't pursue them unless they can make a good faith case. So, while the cops may try to "get" someone who for some reason is on their radar, it's very rare they'll do that without evidence of a real offence"

Although you believe this truly and for the most part it is true the real problem is LACK OF KNOWLEDGE and CLEAR GUIDANCE about the actual laws.

If you were to give police officers a TEST on the storage laws I would bet MOST of them would fail and that is a real problem.The officers the would not fail would probably be hunters,target shooters themselves who have taken the time to dig into the laws.

The average officer who respond,s to a call is probably Normy Newguy as we affectionately called them as rookies.They have almost no idea about the differences between storage,display,in use.There is a knee jerk reaction with police and firearms that is long standing and the default position is Charge,Seize,
cover your arse and let the Crown deal with it.This is the harsh reality in most cases.

The first line of defence is NOT TO INVITE,ALLOW OR BE PERSUADED TO HAVE THEM ENTER YOUR DWELLING.The second defence is not to be sloppy in how you store your guns.